I found a security issue on a competitor, got fired and served a summons

Re:I found a security issue on a competitor, got fired and s... by mmaunder on Wednesday March 16, 2022 @10:41PM (#30707021)

Also could land them substantial prison time under CFAA Re accessing a computer system beyond what was authorized. The above link seems to redirect to a default site now. I’m guessing they yanked the post.

Back before crime it was ok to explore all over town and on private property. When the kidnappings and burglaries started, all that changed. And I’m so very sorry about this because the old days were truly magical.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I found a security issue on a competitor, got fired and s... by tptacek on Wednesday March 16, 2022 @11:25PM (#30707330)

If they didn't do anything with the information, as seems likely (why assume otherwise, people? we're not detectives!) then no, it's unlikely to result in substantial prison time. The thing to watch out for in these benign cases is doing things that trigger substantial forensic investigations, which easily run into 6 figures. If you don't cause that kind of damage, and you don't in any way attempt to profit from the activity, then there isn't actually much in CFAA that will drive sentences up.

(I'm not a lawyer, but for obvious career reasons I nerd way the hell out on CFAA stuff).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I found a security issue on a competitor, got fired and s... by Thorrez on Thursday March 17, 2022 @12:20AM (#30707640)

Am I recalling right that much of weev's $73,000 in damages was the cost of AT&T sending physical letters to everyone saying their email addresses were leaked?

Yeah, this supports that:

https://gizmodo.com/exclusive-at-t-hackers-last-bid-to-stay-...

[ Parent | on HN ]